On Gaslighting

-

The concept of innocence is an interesting one; legally and socially speaking. For the latter, it is in the eye of the beholder and, as a result, it is malleable in light of demographic data (race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability) and unconscious bias. Think about how members of marginalised communities are more likely to be seen as guilty than as innocent (Gross, Possley and Stephens, 2017) (Driscol, 2018) As a result, there is a feeling that "societal" innocence must be earned; like you would earn a treat for a job well done or like a slice of cake your cheat day.  Conversely, legal innocence functions as a pre-existing right. - i.e. it is not earned. Innocence is, without getting into too many details, generally presumptive (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) and extensive (i.e. it will always be, legally speaking, presumed). 

Despite their differences both types of innocence concern themselves with the same question, in theory - who is to blame for the wrongdoing that occurred? In practice, only legal innocence functions this way. Societal innocence, instead, concerns itself with asking if the wrongdoing happened in the first place, given the moral worth of the individual involved. That is if a bad thing happens to a bad person, it is what they deserve or if a bad thing happens to a good person, then it is bad. As a result in this shift in focus, the wrongdoing (or more generally the action in question) itself does not matter, only the moral worth of the individual. No discussion can be had on the morality of the action; no way forward can be devised. Instead, the blame is apportioned without ever discussing for what and why it is being apportioned. One way this is done is through gaslighting. 

Colloquially, "gaslighting" refers to 

"the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings." (Stern, 2019)

For example, if you were to confront your friend for betraying your trust and they refuse to acknowledge, or witness the betrayal (i.e. using feigned anger to justify storming out), despite evidence proving otherwise or invalidate your emotions (i.e. "You're being crazy and everyone agrees with me) then that is gaslighting. "Gaslighting happens in relationships where there is an unequal power dynamic and the target has given the gaslighter power and often their respect." (Stern,2019) Gaslighters often undermine your emotional truth as a means of denial. The personal impact is a feeling of confusion and frustration at the denial of a provable fact and inexplicable anxiety. (1) This anxiety exists not because your wrong, but because something you know to be true, something you can prove to be true is being denied.

Now, what does gaslighting have to do with innocence (and "societal" innocence at that)? When a member of a marginalised community comes forward with their experiences that speak to a greater injustice, our first response should not be to question the injustice itself by asking questions like "are you sure they didn't mean to do this?" or "but how is it any worse than XYZ?" or saying "well, that's just the way things are." These questions can only be asked because they are perceived as "not innocent". This is not to say that they are guilty, but just that they are not innocent. We would never ask these questions of a child, or any other type or class of individual to whom "societal" innocence is presumptive; a type of privilege we are beginning to address. 

Understand that when gaslighting and "societal" innocence collide, they create a situation where the issue being raised is never truly addressed or the exploration of that issue is mired in, and sometimes derailed by, the lack of a "societal" innocence of the messenger. It is why the leaders of social movements are so carefully chosen; so that their character could never impugn or overshadow their message.

On a common-sense level, this makes sense. We have been taught to evaluate sources of information. So one could say that the aforementioned line of questioning facilitated the necessary evaluation. However, this argument obscures that the object of that evaluation is not to discount the information but to better contextualise and situate it so that it can form part of our collective reality. (2)  But once the object of the evaluation is to discount information brought to you, then the evaluation itself is biased and pointless (as you are seeking a post hoc explanation for the rejection of information as you cherry-pick your data). 

Still, I fear it is not clear what the consequences of societal innocence and gaslighting are. If nothing else, remember this, gaslighting stops us from discussing the issue being raised. When marginalised groups, or more generally a person without societal power, speaks up about their injustice, they are gaslit. Their experiences are not acknowledged or discounted because they lack societal innocence. Consequently,  disempowered individuals are stuck trying to prove that injustice happened and nothing is ever done. 

And I believe that that is the point of gaslighting; to keep things as they are. Things don't change because gaslighting has, at least for me, made me unwilling to speak up about things that hurt me (personally, professionally and politically) because I'm still not sure if I'm making things up or if I'm overreacting. Moreover, I'm afraid of not being heard and I've come to expect to be gaslit. 

I am not writing all of this to condemn or proselytize. I am writing it so that we can become aware of the consequences of our actions because WE ALL GASLIGHT! Think about what happens when someone calls you out on inappropriate behaviour. Is your first reaction to acknowledge the emotions of the person who told you and discuss your behaviour together or do you get defensive, and subsequently, evasive? 


1. EDIT: In fact, I realised that I could show you what it looks like. There is an episode of Community (3x19) in which the titular Community are fucking gaslighted while at therapy. I've only ever watched that episode twice (I've watched about everything else like 5/6 times) because it hits too close to home

2. This is not to say that information cannot be discounted, as it can be a by-product of that evaluation (as in the case of grifters), but rather that it should not be one's motivation.  

Popular posts from this blog

Happy Mothers' Day

-
To be, or not to be. That is the eternal question. Should I become a mother?  When I look at the world around me, the answer is no. No matter how much I yearn to be privileged with the care of another human being, I do not want to raise them in an environment that consistently limits their capacity for success. I do not want to raise them in a world that is dying and burden them with the responsibility of saving it – of being better. I do not want to raise them in a world that does not care about who they are, but what they can do.  Yes, there are a lot of 'I's in that paragraph. And yes , I recognise that parenting is not an, exclusively, maternal responsibility. Yet we live in a world where I will be held to greater account for my child's successes and failures than my partners. When this is coupled with my inability to indulge in the possibility of, truly, having a partner, I struggle to envision motherhood as something accessible for me . This is, even, before I conside...
Read more

So, England is Weird

-
I know, I know.  England is only weird to me because my reference point is home (otherwise known as not  England). But still, England is weird. Everything here is so, cultivated. No, that's not it. Manufactured? Artificial . Deliberate. Conscious. Ordinarily, intentionality is not a bad thing. Often, that's the difference between success and failure. But intentionality also highlights the things that are missing. For example, when you become aware that your partner isn't feeling assured, you show them how much they mean to you. When you become aware that your knees are crackling like an open fire while you squat, you introduce mobility and strengthening exercises into your routine. Likewise, when you become aware that people are lonely, alienated and disconnected, you create spaces that foster that connection across the entire community. And, in so doing, you realise how little the concept of community figured in your life.  By community, I suppose I mean people coming ...
Read more

Illegitimate Anger

-
I don't think of myself as an "angry person."  I can barely remember instances of pure unadulterated anger at a situation or a person. I struggle to maintain anger as an emotion - as it often turns into sadness. I set the threshold for my anger far too high (i.e. anger is only acceptable if someone I care about is hurt, or dies etc.) Above all else, I have never, ever, felt that I was allowed to be angry .  When my dad died, my anger was chastised and excised out of me, and replaced with fantastic petulance. When I was wronged, I was always reminded to be more empathetic and reserve judgement until I could speak to the other person. When I saw individuals using their class or race privilege in Africa, I was simply told it's not worth it. You could look at these anecdotes and think that the people around me were trying to teach me to let go of my anger and empathise with the recipient of that anger (an oft-ignored aspect of criminal justice, in my opinion). I don'...
Read more